Category Archives: Lawyer antitrust

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent lawsuit filed by Startup app TIKD Services against The Florida Bar and the Ticket Clinic law firm for, inter alia, antitrust violations and the Bar’s Motion to Disqualify its former president, Ramón A. Abadin from representing TIKD, claiming that he was privy to privileged and confidential communications and information related to the matter. The case is TIKD Services LLC, v. The Florida Bar, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-24103-MGC (U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida-Miami Division).

The owner of the company, Chris Riley, says he got the idea for TIKD after he received a speeding ticket in Miami and had to pay a lawyer and was assessed fines and costs. He then came up with an app to help motorists challenge their tickets without having to go to court. The app permits the ticketed person to upload a photo of the ticket and pay a fixed amount. TIKD then retains an attorney to represent that person and, if he or she is ultimately is assessed with points against his or her license, TIKD refunds the payment and also pays the cost of the ticket. The TIKD business model is based on the fact that contested traffic tickets are often dismissed or a lower fine is assessed and, since TIKD deals in volume, it can charge a lower price than a lawyer who is separately retained by an individual.

The Florida Bar issued a staff opinion finding that lawyers who work with TIKD and similar programs could be in violation of various Florida Bar ethics rules, including fee splitting and interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment. TIKD states that its services fully comply with Florida Bar ethics rules and that lawyers who represent the individuals receive a flat fee and are independent practitioners “over whom TIKD does not exercise any direction or control.”

TIKD subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging conspiracy, restraint of trade, tortious interference with business relationships, and antitrust violations. The lawyers representing TIKD include Ramón A. Abadin, a recent former President of the Florida Bar. The defendants include, among others, The Florida Bar and attorney Mark S. Good, who founded The Ticket Clinic; which has offices in Florida, Georgia and California.

According to the federal lawsuit, The Florida Bar advised TIKD that it was opening an unlicensed practice of law investigation into the company’s activities after the company was featured in a Miami Herald story. A few months later, attorneys with The Ticket Clinic, a Miami law firm that handles traffic tickets, threatened to report two of TIKD’s lawyers to the Bar if they continued to work with TIKD. Litigation was later filed and the parties reached a settlement last August; however, TIKD alleges that the Bar and the Miami lawyer firm continued a “concerted effort” to put it out of business and that Ticket Clinic lawyers continued filing “baseless ethics complaints” against attorneys represent TIKD customers.

On December 1, 2017, The Florida Bar filed a Motion to Disqualify Ramón A. Abadin alleging that, during his 2015-16 term as president, he “was provided attorney-client and attorney work-product communications and advice about and involving the specific antitrust issues and allegations asserted in this action”, including an amicus brief that was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015). In that opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the N.C. dental board did not have state action immunity because its decisions were final and not subject to review. The Florida Bar joined in an amicus brief in that case arguing state action immunity should apply.

Bottom line: This appears to be the one of the first cases filed in Florida which directly alleges that The Florida Bar’s procedures violate the Sherman Antitrust Act based upon the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission. As an added element of intrigue, the Bar’s very recent former president was among the lawyers filing the complaint and the Bar has filed a motion to disqualify him from the matter.

Stay tuned…and be careful out there.

Disclaimer: this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent (July 20, 2016) Order approving the settlement of an Ohio unauthorized practice of law (UPL) complaint filed by the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association (CMBA) against an online mechanic’s lien settlement software maker called Express Lien, Inc. (d/b/a Zlien) and dismissing the complaint. The case is Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Associationv. Express Lien, Inc. dba Zlien et al, case number Case No. UPL 15-01. The Ohio Supreme Court UPL Board’s Order approving the settlement and dismissing the complaint is here: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Boards/UPL/settlement/UPL15-01.pdf

The CMBA filed the UPL complaint in May 2015 against Express Lien Inc. (Zlien) alleging that it was enabling non-lawyers to practice law in Ohio. Zlien claimed that its platform streamlined the process of filing lien documents by facilitating the filing of those documents by its users and that it was not engaging in or enabling UPL.

According to the Order, the UPL complaint alleged that Zlien was illegally practicing law when Zlien “Director of Client Experience” Gretchen Lynn allegedly prepared, signed and attempted to file a lien against an Ohio property on behalf of Midwest Interiors LLC. The complaint stated that Ms. Lynn was not a lawyer in Ohio and Zlien was not registered with the Ohio Secretary of State.

The Cuyahoga County Fiscal Office rejected the lien because it was filed 33 days past the 75-day window to file. The CMBA then initiated an investigation which led to the filing of the complaint. Zlien stated that the affidavit was completed using aggregated information and it is “a technology powered scrivener” that “merely copies verbatim” user provided information.

Zlien’s federal complaint cited to the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners which struck down the enforcement of regulations by North Carolina’s dental board, which had attempted to prohibit teeth whitening by non-dentists. In that case, the Supreme Court stated that the regulation of a profession by licensees in the same profession violated federal antitrust laws.

The UPL settlement agreement states that Zlien has agreed not to sign any mechanic’s lien affidavits unless it is a party or can practice law in the jurisdiction. The company also agreed not to select the property descriptions inserted in lien affidavits or advise customers on which property descriptions to use. Zlien also agreed to require its users to sign generated lien documents themselves rather than appointing the company to sign for them through power of attorney.

Zlien issued a public statement through its chief legal officer related to the settlement: “Technology has advanced to the point where it can put groups that change at a slower pace – like bar associations – in unfamiliar and potentially uncomfortable situations.” “Software can’t practice law, and people still need lawyers for certain tasks, but things that technology can do are not the things for which lawyers are required.”

Hello and welcome to this New Year’s Eve 2015 Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent decision of the Washington State Bar to suspend some ethics opinions because of antitrust concerns arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2015 opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission. I previously blogged about the Supreme Court’s decision here: USSC NC dental licensing opinion, the LegalZoom antitrust lawsuit in North Carolina based upon the USSC opinion here: LegalZoom filed antitrust lawsuit against NC Bar and the settlement of that lawsuit here: LegalZoom settles antitrust lawsuit against NC Bar.

According to a recent ABA Journal article, the Washington State Bar Association has advised its ethics committee to stop issuing ethics opinions which could be interpreted as having the effect of restraining trade in the legal services market. The bar stated that it suspended the opinions so it could “proceed very deliberately” in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2015 opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.

That U.S. Supreme Court decision permitted an antitrust action against the North Carolina state dentistry board for its decision prohibiting non-dentists from whitening teeth to proceed. The opinion stated that when a state board is controlled by active market participants in the market it regulates, state-action antitrust immunity cannot be applied unless the restraint of trade is affirmatively expressed by state policy and the policy is actively supervised by the state.

Bottom line: This is more fallout from the 2015 USSC Dental Board decision. As I have stated in my previous blogs, there have been lawsuits against state Bars in the past attacking the entity’s state action immunity. The Supreme Court opinion refers to three specific cases and appears to suggest that these cases should be interpreted to mean that only the actions of a state entity which is actively supervised by the state (i.e. the Supreme Court in the case of a state Bar) have antitrust immunity and the rest of the entity’s actions may not have such immunity.

I wish you and yours a very happy and healthy 2016!

Disclaimer: this e-mail is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: This electronic communication and the information contained herein is legally privileged and confidential proprietary information intended only for the individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed pursuant to the American Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 99-413, dated March 10, 1999 and all other applicable laws and rules. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail at the above telephone number and then delete message entirely from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent antitrust lawsuit filed on June 3, 2015 by LegalZoom against the North Carolina State Bar alleging antitrust violations. The case is LegalZoom.com, Inc. v. North Carolina State Bar, et al, (U.S. Middle District, North Carolina) Case No.: 1:15-CV-439. The formal Complaint (WSJ link) is at http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2015_0604_legalzoom.pdf.

The Complaint was filed on June 3, 2015 and seeks injunctive relief for antitrust violations as well as damages, claiming that the North Carolina State Bar is has “engaged in unauthorized and anticompetitive conduct illegally and unreasonably restraining trade in the Relevant Market” by prohibiting LegalZoom from offering prepaid legal services plans in that state. As support for the claims, the Complaint cites a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on the prohibition of non-dentists from providing teeth whitening services in North Carolina.

According to the Complaint, in 1991, the North Carolina state legislature “removed from the State Bar any power over prior and continuing approval of prepaid legal services plans, leaving to the State Bar only the ministerial task of keeping a registration list of plans sold in North Carolina. The State Bar, however, defied the Legislature. Over time, the State Bar unilaterally and ultra vires reassumed and exercised the power the Legislature had removed. The State Bar adopted – without legislative authority or active State supervision – a restrictive definition of what constitutes a prepaid legal services plan, and then began to refuse to ‘accept’ for registration plans that purportedly did not meet its own definition, excluding those plan providers from the Relevant Market.” The Complaint states that the Bar rules require the prepaid plans to be paid in advance of any immediate need, and any legal services provided must be provided by lawyers licensed in the state.

In support of the allegations, the Complaint cites the February 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, which is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-534_19m2.pdf. The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners opinion held that a dental regulatory board made up mostly of dentists does not have state-action immunity in an antitrust action and authorized a Federal Trade Commission challenge to the dental board’s prohibition of the provision of teeth whitening services by non-dentists. The opinion also found that when a state board is controlled by market participants in the occupation that it regulates, state-action antitrust immunity does not accrue unless the restraint of trade that is being challenged is affirmatively expressed as state policy and the policy is actively supervised by the state.

Bottom line: It should be very interesting to watch this case unfold. When the USSC opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission was rendered on February 25, 2015, there was much analysis/commentary in the media regarding the potential vulnerability of state Bars to an antitrust challenge if it could be shown that they were controlled by market participants (lawyers) in the occupation being regulated (the law). This appears to be the first shot across the bow. Stay tuned…

…and be careful out there.

Disclaimer: this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.